set_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely new behavioral trait: the update is partial, so fields that are not passed remain unchanged. It still omits any mention of the response, of error behavior, or of whether omission differs from explicitly clearing a field, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with no wasted wording, and the partial-update semantics lead the reader immediately. Better than minimal, though the wording 'only name/description you pass change' is slightly awkward and the JSON Patch parenthetical adds ambiguity rather than precision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a small 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present: it names the resource, states that updates are partial, and lists the mutable fields. Given the low schema coverage, it should still say whether id is required and whether fields can be cleared, so a gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%; only id is documented in the schema, so the description has to carry the meaning of name and description, and it does partly by naming them as the fields that change. However, it gives no type, format, or optionality guidance, and the '(JSON Patch)' phrasing risks suggesting that a patch-document array is accepted, when the schema expects plain fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Partially update a project' with the scope qualifier that only name/description are changed. It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions the sibling update_project (or create_project), so an agent gets no help distinguishing a full update from this partial one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the word 'partially' signals that this is the tool for changing one or two fields, and the 'only name/description' note hints that other fields are untouched. There is no explicit when-to-use versus update_project, no statement of what happens when a field is omitted or set to null, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.